QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Langridge v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 251 |
PARTIES: | Langridge, Michael Paul v Workers' Compensation Regulator |
CASE NO: | WC/2019/205 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator |
DELIVERED ON: | 23 July 2021 |
HEARING DATE: | 12 February 2021 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | O'CONNOR VP Townsville |
ORDERS: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The Appellant's application under s 132A of the Workers' Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 for assessment of degree of permanent impairment be decided according to law. 3. The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of, and incidental to, the appeal. |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - where application for assessment of degree of permanent impairment under s 132A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), as at 1 July 2014 rejected - where respondent determined worker was not entitled to compensation as worker had not sustained an injury as defined in s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) - whether s 132A implied an obligatory power for respondent to determine entitlement to compensation prior to referral for assessment under s 179 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) - where respondent did not have capacity to reject appellant's application for assessment under s 132A. |
LEGISLATION: CASES: | Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32AA Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 4, s 5, s 6, s 9, s 11, s 32, s 34, s 108, s 132, s 132A, s 179, s 180, s 184, s 185, s 186, s 187, s 188, s 189, s 190, s 237, s 540 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 132A, s 237, as at 1 July 2014 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 237, s 258, as at 23 September 2013 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2015 (Qld) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Qld) Explanatory Notes, Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (Qld) Explanatory Notes, Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Qld) Castillon v P&O Port Limited [2006] 2 Qd R 220 Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWSLR 393 Dowd v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 228 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622; (1984) 54 ALR 639 Langridge v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 048 Mandep Sarkaria v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 001 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt [2019] 1 Qd R 390, [2018] QCA 127 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr J. A. Greggery of Queens Counsel, instructed by Organic Legal, for the Appellant. Mr C. A. Clark of Counsel directly instructed by the… |
Continue reading Langridge v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Langridge v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2021] QIRC 251
- Case
- [2021] QIRC 251
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in this case was whether section 132A of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) implied an obligatory power for the respondent to determine entitlement to compensation prior to referring an application for assessment under section 179 of the same Act. The court was required to decide whether the respondent had the capacity to reject Langridge's application for assessment under section 132A.
The court found that section 132A did not imply an obligatory power for the respondent to determine entitlement to compensation prior to referral for assessment under section 179. The court held that the respondent did not have the capacity to reject Langridge's application for assessment under section 132A, as this power was not explicitly stated in the legislation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's application for assessment of the degree of permanent impairment was to be decided according to law. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The Appellant's application under s 132A of the Workers' Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 for assessment of degree of permanent impairment be decided according to law.
3. The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of, and incidental to, the appeal.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.